Moreover, political factionalism had long been a fixture in American politics by Washington's time. In fact, before the American Revolution, political cliques of one sort or another were common in colonial legislatures. Differences among the various colonies (later states) frequently emerged. Even within Washington's own cabinet there was tension between Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson due to political disagreements.
Nonetheless, Washington himself did his best to stay out of partisan debates. He apparently was motivated to do so by the conviction that the president of the United States should be a figure of nationality unity. He had seen the adverse effects of regional and political divisions during the post-Revolutionary period and felt the country could ill-afford the effects of factionalism. This is not to say that Washington had no political leanings of his own. On the whole, his personal views tended more toward those of the Federalists. Moreover, at times he had no choice but to come down on one side or the other of a controversial issue, like ratification of Jay's Treaty with Great Britain in 1795. Nevertheless, he felt it important to generally avoid being identified with either the Federalists or their rivals the Democratic-Republicans. This reluctance to be seen as taking sides was manifested in other areas. For example, by the time of his presidency, Washington, despite being a slaveholder himself, had begun to have doubts about the institution of slavery and even at one point contemplated freeing his slaves (this did not actually happen until after Washington's death, in accordance with his will, and only the slaves that he personally "owned" were freed) . Nevertheless, during his time as president Washington refused to talk publicly about slavery in order not to inflame strong feelings about the issue in the North and the South. Moreover, Washington seems to have deliberately kept his public expressions of religious belief as general as possible, in order to avoid being seen as favoring one Christian denomination over the other. Perhaps not surprisingly, this reticence about his own faith has lead to considerable debate in modern times over what Washington actually believed.
Since Washington's time, a number of his successors as president have attempted--on occasion--to act as figures of nationality unity like Washington, but they have been largely unsuccessful. Indeed, some political scientists would argue that the nature of the American presidency makes nonpartisanship impossible. The president is simultaneously the ceremonial head of state (like the British monarch) and the head of government (like the British prime minister), who, inevitably, is seen as the de facto head of a political party. Even John Adams, Washington's immediate successor and a formidable figure in his own right, was unsuccessful in his efforts to emulate Washington's image as a nonpartisan president. A Federalist, Adams tried to recruit Vice President Thomas Jefferson (his political rival and leader of the Democratic-Republicans) into a sort of government of national unity, but Jefferson ultimately rejected the idea. For his part, later in his presidency, Adams ended up signing legislation (i.e., the Alien and Sedition Acts) that was blatantly directed at Jefferson's allies.
In the end, perhaps of all those who have served as president of the United States, Washington alone possessed the stature to be viewed as a nonpartisan figure. Consequently, perhaps we should not be too hard on his successors for failing where he (largely) succeeded. On the other hand, perhaps it is not too much to wish that Washington's current successor and those who follow him would, on occasion, at least try to follow Washington's example.
Image of Gilbert Stuart's Williamstown portrait of George Washington from Wikimedia Commons